New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated...
Transcript of New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated...
![Page 1: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Adam Lid <[email protected]>
Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated Resources PlanAnnual Progress Report1 message
Joyce Dillard <[email protected]> Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:49 PMReply-To: Joyce Dillard <[email protected]>To: Adam Lid <[email protected]>, The Honorable Felipe Fuentes <[email protected]>
Accuracy is a problem in this report. YOU STATE under Go if Triggered Projects Hyperion Service Area (HSA):
Population: Based on the 2008 SCAG population projections, the need to expandwould occur sometime after year 2025.
and under Go if-Triggered Project Updates include 5. Design/construction of up to 12digesters at HTP:
Based on 2008 projections, expansion would occur sometime after 2025 COMMENTS: SCAG population projections that should be used are from the 2010 census. The 5th Cycle
Regional Housing Needs Assessment Final Allocation Plan, 1/1/2014-10/1/2021
was approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development onNovember 26, 2012. Growth for the City of Los Angeles is projected at 95,023. YOU STATE under Go-Policy Directions includes 6. Direct DWP to continue conservationefforts, including working with Building and Safety to evaluate and develop a policy thatrequires developers to implement individual water meters for all new apartment buildings:
LADWP and the Housing Department have established an outreach committee withapartment owners and renters organizations to identify obstacles to submeteringexisting properties and potential solutions. The committee has reviewed ordinancesput forth by other cities, all which refer to new construction Beginning January 2011, new irrigated landscapes of 5,000 square feet or more wererequired to have separate water meters or submeters as part of the new 2010California Green Building Standards Code.
![Page 2: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
COMMENTS: Housing Department has been changed to Housing and Community Investment Department. 2010 Green Building Standards Code has been updated in the 2013 Green BuildingStandards Code. RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS seem to be executed without a trigger in the following:
Go if-Triggered Project Updates: 1. Upgrades at DCT WRP to Advanced Treatment(current capacity)Status: Although this trigger has not been reached, the City has made a decision touse DCTWRP recycled water for groundwater replenishment.
and
2. Expansion of DCT WRP to 1 00 mgd with advanced treatmentStatus: DCT has the ability to receive up to 80-million gallons of wastewater daily,however the average daily flow (2008 - present) is approximately 33 MGD. Due to thereduced influent flow to the plant, expansion at DCT is not necessary at this time. Although expansion of DCTWRP to 100 mgd is not necessary at this time, the Cityhas made a decision to use DCTWRP recycled water for groundwater replenishment.Under the proposed project, an Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) wouldbe constructed within DCTWRP
COMMENTS: It is not clear how this decision was made over some of the other infrastructure needs. AnEconomic Analysis is lacking. 2013 California Plumbing Code defines RECYCLED WATER as:
Nonpotable water that meets California Department of Public Health statewideuniform criteria for disinfected tertiary recycled water. Reclaimed (recycled) water isalso known as “recycled water” or “reclaimed water”.
LADWP recycled water falls into that category-not recycled water from the Bureau ofSanitation. LA RIVER REVITALIZATION MASTER PLAN LARRMP is emphasized in this report:
Go-Policy Directions2. Direct Building and Safety and DWP to evaluate and develop ordinances to requireinstallation where feasible of dual plumbing for new multi-family, commercial andindustrial developments, schools and government properties in the vicinity of existingor planned recycled water distribution systems in coordination with LA River
![Page 3: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Revitalization Master Plan. Graywater use for irrigation is permitted in the City provided system installation anduse is pursuant to the 2010 California Plumbing Code
and
3. Direct Public Works and DWP to coordinate where feasible the design/constructionof recycled water distribution piping (purple pipe) with other major public worksprojects, including street widening, and LA River Revitalization Master Plan projectareas. Also coordinate with other agencies, including MTA and Caltrans on majortransportation projects.
and
9. Direct DWP to continue conservation awareness efforts, including increasingeducation programs on the benefits of using climate-appropriate plants with anemphasis on California friendly plants for landscaping or landscaped areasdeveloped in coordination with LA River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP), andto develop a program of incentives for implementation.
and
12. (b) Direct Public Works and Department of Planning to evaluate the possibility ofrequiring porous pavements in all new public facilities in coordination with LA RiverRevitalization Master Plan and large developments greater than 1 acre. Programfeasibility must consider site slope, soil conditions, terrain and proximity to otherimprovements.
and
14. Direct Public Works LASAN-WPD and BSS to evaluate and implementintegration of porous pavements into the sidewalks and parkways where feasible. For example, conduct pilot program in East Valley, taking into consideration soilconditions and Proposition O project criteria, as well as along the future LA RiverRevitalization Master Plan.
and
23. Direct the Department of Planning to consider opportunities to incorporate IRPpolicy decisions in the General Plan, Community Plan, and Specific Plan updatesor revisions, and in the future LA River Revitalization Master Plan and OpportunityAreas. Status: The Department of City Planning is currently developing the new Cornfield
![Page 4: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and updating the Warner Center Specific Plan both ofwhich will include new standards that support IRP policies. The Department's new Supplemental Use District -- the Los Angeles RiverImprovement Overlay -- which is currently under development includes numerousstandards and guidelines that encourage the increase of stormwater infiltration andreduced exterior water use. The Department is also currently updating 6 of itscommunity plans which will include the following goals and policies:
COMMENTS: LA River Revitalization Master Plan is a development plan whereas the US Army Corps ofEngineers issued the LA River Ecosystem Feasibility Study which is a restoration plan. Wequestion why the other communities in the City of Los Angeles are not equitably considered forthis plan. Watershed Protection should include an emphasis on the natural environment City of LosAngele has several watersheds, not just the LA River. Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan has been enacted as has the Los Angeles RiverImprovement Overlay LA-RIO. RIO has been expanded to the river within the City of LosAngeles boundaries. RIO is being considered for all water bodies in the City. Graywater is defined in the 2013 California Plumbing Code and should be updated from the2010 California Plumbing Code:
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17922.12, “graywater” means untreatedwastewater that has not been contaminated by any toilet discharge, has not beenaffected by infectious, contaminated, or unhealthy bodily wastes, and does not presenta threat from contamination by unhealthy bodily wastes, and does not present a threatfrom contamination by unhealthful processing, manufacturing, or operating wastes.“Graywater” includes, but is not limited, to wastewater from bathtubs, showers,bathroom washbasins, clothes washing machines, and laundry tubs, but does notinclude wastewater from kitchen sinks and or dishwashers
RETROFITS are mentioned in Go-Policy Directions 17. Direct Public Works, GeneralServices, and Recreation and Parks to identify sites that can provide onsite percolation ofwet weather runoff in surplus properties, vacant lots, parks/open space, abandoned alleys inEast Valley and along the LA River in the East Valley where feasible:
Status: The Elmer Avenue Paseo Project represents the second phase of the ElmerAvenue Neighborhood Retrofit Project located at the southern end of the ElmerAvenue project. The total project budget is $675,806 with $129,000 of the fundingcoming from the City's Prop O bond measure. The project is a demonstration project that serves as a template for futureneighborhood retrofits throughout the L.A. region.
![Page 5: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
COMMENTS: Oros Street is also a demonstration project. Not addressed is the long-term cooperation ofthe neighborhood to sustain the project, as is the Oros Street case. Not mentioned is howProposition O funding achieved any measurable results. STORMWATER CAPTURE is described in Go-Policy Directions 19. Direct Public WorksLASAN-WPD and BSS to include all feasible BMPs in the construction or reconstruction ofhighway medians under its jurisdiction:
Additionally, the Woodman Avenue Multi-Beneficial Stormwater Capture andMedian Retrofit Project will enhance the aesthetics of the 3,500 foot long asphaltmedian bordering the west side of Woodman Avenue from Lanark Street to SaticoyStreet. The project proposes to install 99 new street trees and approximately 27,000 squarefeet of native and drought tolerant landscape, a five foot wide walking path, accessramps, and to provide improvements to the existing bus stops along the medians. Additionally, the project will reclaim the urban forest, provide pedestrianimprovements and passive recreation while helping to recharge the groundwaterbasin, improve water quality, and alleviate local flooding. The new design will allow forthe capture of surface runoff that currently flows into the Los Angeles River andeventually into the ocean. The runoff will now be directed through pre-treatment devices and into a naturalizedvegetated swale for infiltration. The project also includes an educational stakeholdercomponent in order to promote environmental stewardship. This project is acollaboration between the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,L.A. Sanitation, Bureau of Street Services, The River Project, with the support of the Office of Councilman Tony Cardenas, thePanorama City Neighborhood Council, local organization, and area residents. Theproject construction is scheduled to be completed by early 2014.
COMMENTS: This project was funded by the Coastal Commission under the name Los Angeles Rainwater Harvesting Projectto The River Project. Coastal Commission report states:
Finally, the project will provide standard plans for inclusion in an updated version of the City’s RainwaterHarvesting Manual and as the City’s Green Residence Standards to be adopted and incorporated into theCity’s “Green Streets Initiative” program. When completed the Green Residential Standard Plans can bereplicated in the Los Angeles River watershed and communities elsewhere in the City of Los Angeles.
![Page 6: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Coastal Commission funds the project:
This project would be undertaken pursuant to Chapter 5. of the Conservancy‟senabling legislation, Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, regarding integratedcoastal and marine resources protection. Section 31220(a) authorizes theConservancy to undertake and award grants for projects that meet one or more criteriaof Section 31220(b). Consistent with Section 31220(b) (7), the proposed project willhelp reduce the impact of population and economic pressures on coastal and marineresources. The retrofit of residential areas will help reduce storm-water run-off into theLos Angeles River and it will serve as a model for the City as a whole.
Local Coastal Programs along with the Local Coastal Development Permits are not addressedin this plan. BALLONA CREEK is included in Go-Policy Directions: 21. In the context of developingTMDL implementation plans, direct Public Works to consider diversion of dry weather runofffrom Ballona Creek to constructed wetlands, wastewater system, or urban runoff plant fortreatment and/or beneficial use. Coordinate with the Department of Recreation and Parks.Coordinate and evaluate the impact with the LA River Master Plan. COMMENTS: We question if the Estuary is under consideration as to the aspects of preservation. LA RiverMaster Plan, a Los Angeles County plan, should not have an effect on this water body. Watershed protection should include birds and the wildlife. TMDL IMPLEMENTATION is an important component that is underplayed in this report Go-Policy Directions 22. In the context of developing TMDL implementation plans, direct PublicWorks to consider diversion of dry weather runoff from inland creeks and storm drains thatare tributary to the Los Angeles River to wastewater system or constructed wetlands ortreatment/retention/infiltration basins with consideration for slope and topography:
However, projects such Los Angeles Downtown Low Flow diversion and South LosAngeles Wetlands Park will contribute towards compliance with the bacteria TMDL. The South Los Angeles Wetlands Park transformed an existing rail maintenance yardinto constructed wetlands with surrounding walking trails, riparian vegetation and otherpassive recreation elements. The wetland is designed to capture and treatstormwater and urban runoff from a 540-acre drainage area. The project wascompleted in late 2011.
COMMENTS: There is no treatment at the South LA Wetlands Park and water used was supplied fromLADWP (David Goldstein, CBS Investigates). It is time to get honest about these projects andmeasure the results and the costs.
![Page 7: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
COMMENTS: OMISSION includes various studies and code updates and definition confusion. Please note that Regional Coastal Impacts are being studied by scientists including Hyperionand its vulnerability. Rainwater is defined in the 2013 California Plumbing Code:
Precipitation on any public or private parcel that has not entered an offsite storm drainsystem or channel, a flood control channel or stream channel, and has not previouslybeen put to beneficial use.
Stormwater (storm sewer) requires a municipal permitting process (MS4) and should not beconfused with graywater or rainwater harvesting. Urban runoff is a state term, not a Federalterm under the Clean Water Act. Missing is an update of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program certified in the FinalEnvironmental Impact Report. Joyce DillardP.O. Box 31377Los Angeles, CA 90031 Attachments5thCyclePFinalRHNAplanHCDApproval_scagRHNAPlan11261220120119Board06_Rainwater_Harvesting_Project
3 attachments
5thCyclePFinalRHNAplan.pdf80K
HCDApproval_scagRHNAPlan112612.pdf492K
20120119Board06_Rainwater_Harvesting_Project.pdf199K
![Page 8: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Southern California Association of Governments5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Final Allocation Plan, 1/1/2014 ‐ 10/1/2021
County
% very low income
households% low income households
% moderate income
households
% above moderate income
households % total
Household Growth (2014-
2021)Base Vacancy
Needs
Total Replacement
Needs Vacancy Credit
Number of very low income households
Number of low income
households
Number of moderate income
households
Number of above
moderate income
households Total
Imperial 25.2% 15.8% 15.5% 43.5% 100.0% 17,428 479 49 1,404 4,194 2,553 2,546 7,258 16,551
Los Angeles 25.3% 15.6% 16.8% 42.3% 100.0% 200,572 6,131 1,268 28,297 45,672 27,469 30,043 76,697 179,881
Orange 22.9% 16.8% 18.5% 41.8% 100.0% 41,530 1,143 414 6,150 8,734 6,246 6,971 16,015 37,966
Riverside 23.7% 16.5% 18.3% 41.5% 100.0% 120,308 2,948 175 22,059 24,117 16,319 18,459 42,479 101,374
San Bernardino 23.3% 16.6% 18.4% 41.7% 100.0% 70,623 1,890 469 16,833 13,399 9,265 10,490 24,053 57,207
Ventura 23.5% 16.5% 18.6% 41.4% 100.0% 19,628 523 41 647 4,516 3,095 3,544 8,003 19,158
SCAG 24.3% 16.2% 17.6% 41.9% 100.0% 470,089 13,113 2,416 75,390 100,632 64,947 72,053 174,505 412,137
County City
% very low income
households% low income households
% moderate income
households
% above moderate income
households % total
Household Growth (2014-
2021)Base Vacancy
Needs
Total Replacement
Needs Vacancy Credit
Number of very low income households
Number of low income
households
Number of moderate income
households
Number of above
moderate income
households Total
Imperial Brawley city 24.9% 15.9% 15.4% 43.8% 100% 3,080 90 4 141 760 470 466 1,338 3,034
Imperial Calexico city 25.3% 15.5% 15.3% 43.9% 100% 3,139 91 8 13 817 489 490 1,428 3,224
Imperial Calipatria city 25.9% 15.8% 15.5% 42.9% 100% 187 5 0 48 37 22 22 63 144
Imperial El Centro city 25.2% 15.9% 15.5% 43.3% 100% 2,118 64 8 265 487 300 297 840 1,924
Imperial Holtville city 25.5% 15.3% 15.4% 43.8% 100% 222 7 1 20 54 31 32 92 209
Imperial Imperial city 26.5% 16.1% 15.5% 41.9% 100% 1,367 32 1 91 349 205 202 553 1,309
Imperial Westmorland city 24.2% 15.5% 15.6% 44.6% 100% 230 7 3 8 57 35 36 105 233
Imperial Unincorporated 25.1% 15.8% 15.5% 43.5% 100% 7,085 182 25 819 1,633 1,001 1,001 2,839 6,474
Los Angeles Agoura Hills city 27.0% 16.6% 17.1% 39.4% 100% 113 2 0 0 31 19 20 45 115
Los Angeles Alhambra city 25.4% 15.4% 16.6% 42.6% 100% 1,580 52 0 141 380 224 246 642 1,492
Los Angeles Arcadia city 26.1% 16.2% 16.9% 40.8% 100% 1,141 30 0 117 276 167 177 434 1,054
Los Angeles Artesia city 25.5% 15.1% 16.6% 42.8% 100% 112 3 5 0 31 18 20 51 120
Los Angeles Avalon city 25.5% 15.0% 17.2% 42.3% 100% 149 6 3 79 20 12 14 34 80
Los Angeles Azusa city 25.4% 15.5% 16.4% 42.7% 100% 868 25 6 120 198 118 127 336 779
Los Angeles Baldwin Park city 25.3% 15.3% 16.2% 43.1% 100% 528 14 15 0 142 83 90 242 557
Los Angeles Bell city 24.1% 15.2% 16.7% 44.0% 100% 40 1 6 0 11 7 8 21 47
Los Angeles Bellflower city 25.3% 15.3% 16.5% 42.9% 100% 91 3 0 115 1 1 0 0 2
Los Angeles Bell Gardens city 24.5% 15.0% 16.4% 44.1% 100% 33 1 12 0 11 7 8 20 46
Los Angeles Beverly Hills city 26.0% 16.3% 17.1% 40.7% 100% 271 9 34 324 1 1 1 0 3
Los Angeles Bradbury city 27.5% 17.1% 17.7% 37.7% 100% 7 0 1 7 1 1 0 0 2
Los Angeles Burbank city 25.8% 15.8% 16.6% 41.9% 100% 2,767 88 62 234 694 413 443 1,134 2,684
Los Angeles Calabasas city 26.7% 16.8% 17.5% 39.0% 100% 325 7 0 3 88 54 57 131 330
Los Angeles Carson city 26.2% 15.9% 16.6% 41.3% 100% 1,662 36 0 0 447 263 280 708 1,698
Los Angeles Cerritos city 26.5% 16.2% 17.0% 40.2% 100% 84 2 0 0 23 14 14 35 86
Los Angeles Claremont city 26.2% 16.1% 17.1% 40.6% 100% 372 9 0 8 98 59 64 152 373
Los Angeles Commerce city 25.1% 15.5% 15.9% 43.6% 100% 44 1 0 0 12 7 7 20 46
Los Angeles Compton city 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100% 11 0 4 302 1 1 0 0 2
Los Angeles Covina city 26.0% 15.6% 16.6% 41.7% 100% 310 9 2 90 60 35 38 97 230
Los Angeles Cudahy city 25.0% 14.7% 16.1% 44.2% 100% 303 12 3 0 80 46 51 141 318
Los Angeles Culver City city 26.0% 16.0% 16.9% 41.1% 100% 180 5 0 0 48 29 31 77 185
Los Angeles Diamond Bar city 26.8% 16.3% 16.7% 40.2% 100% 1,122 23 0 0 308 182 190 466 1,146
Los Angeles Downey city 25.7% 15.4% 16.6% 42.2% 100% 854 25 19 84 210 123 135 346 814
Los Angeles Duarte city 25.7% 16.0% 16.3% 42.0% 100% 329 8 0 0 87 53 55 142 337
Los Angeles El Monte city 24.6% 15.0% 16.5% 43.8% 100% 2,069 67 34 28 529 315 352 946 2,142
Los Angeles El Segundo city 26.5% 16.0% 17.3% 40.2% 100% 60 2 7 0 18 11 12 28 69
Los Angeles Gardena city 24.7% 15.4% 16.6% 43.2% 100% 394 12 0 9 98 60 66 173 397
Los Angeles Glendale city 25.1% 15.7% 16.8% 42.4% 100% 2,291 77 61 411 508 310 337 862 2,017
Los Angeles Glendora city 26.4% 15.9% 16.8% 40.9% 100% 661 15 9 0 171 100 108 267 646
Los Angeles Hawaiian Gardens city 24.9% 15.3% 16.4% 43.4% 100% 124 4 3 2 32 19 21 57 129
Income Category Distribution* Final RHNA AllocationDraft RHNA Components**
1 of 58/29/2012
![Page 9: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Southern California Association of Governments5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Final Allocation Plan, 1/1/2014 ‐ 10/1/2021
County
% very low income
households% low income households
% moderate income
households
% above moderate income
households % total
Household Growth (2014-
2021)Base Vacancy
Needs
Total Replacement
Needs Vacancy Credit
Number of very low income households
Number of low income
households
Number of moderate income
households
Number of above
moderate income
households Total
Los Angeles Hawthorne city 24.8% 15.2% 16.5% 43.5% 100% 711 26 0 55 170 101 112 300 683
Los Angeles Hermosa Beach city 26.8% 16.1% 17.4% 39.7% 100% 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
Los Angeles Hidden Hills city 27.6% 17.0% 18.2% 37.2% 100% 18 0 3 2 5 3 3 7 18
Los Angeles Huntington Park city 24.1% 14.7% 16.7% 44.5% 100% 845 31 18 0 216 128 149 402 895
Los Angeles Industry city 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Los Angeles Inglewood city 24.5% 15.2% 16.6% 43.7% 100% 1,159 39 75 261 250 150 167 446 1,013
Los Angeles Irwindale city 25.9% 15.8% 16.4% 41.9% 100% 15 0 1 1 4 2 2 7 15
Los Angeles La Canada Flintridge city 27.0% 16.5% 17.6% 38.8% 100% 110 2 0 0 30 18 20 44 112
Los Angeles La Habra Heights city 26.8% 16.6% 17.5% 39.1% 100% 117 2 1 1 32 19 21 47 119
Los Angeles Lakewood city 26.5% 16.0% 16.7% 40.8% 100% 425 10 0 32 107 63 67 166 403
Los Angeles La Mirada city 26.2% 16.1% 17.0% 40.7% 100% 230 5 0 0 62 37 40 96 235
Los Angeles Lancaster city 24.9% 15.7% 16.5% 42.9% 100% 3,980 107 33 1,610 627 384 413 1,086 2,510
Los Angeles La Puente city 25.4% 15.1% 16.5% 43.0% 100% 942 25 0 0 208 121 135 354 818
Los Angeles La Verne city 26.1% 16.1% 16.8% 41.0% 100% 585 13 3 39 147 88 94 233 562
Los Angeles Lawndale city 25.0% 15.4% 16.4% 43.3% 100% 368 13 0 0 96 57 62 166 381
Los Angeles Lomita city 25.8% 15.8% 16.8% 41.6% 100% 36 1 9 0 12 7 8 20 47
Los Angeles Long Beach city 25.1% 15.5% 16.7% 42.8% 100% 9,487 309 0 2,748 1,773 1,066 1,170 3,039 7,048
Los Angeles Los Angeles city 24.8% 15.5% 16.8% 42.8% 100% 95,023 3,186 0 16,207 20,427 12,435 13,728 35,412 82,002
Los Angeles Lynwood city 24.9% 15.0% 16.5% 43.6% 100% 453 14 27 0 123 72 81 218 494
Los Angeles Malibu city 26.4% 16.5% 17.4% 39.6% 100% 130 3 3 198 1 1 0 0 2
Los Angeles Manhattan Beach city 26.9% 16.5% 17.5% 39.1% 100% 37 1 0 0 10 6 7 15 38
Los Angeles Maywood city 24.3% 14.8% 16.7% 44.2% 100% 50 2 1 0 13 8 9 23 53
Los Angeles Monrovia city 25.8% 15.9% 16.7% 41.6% 100% 388 12 14 25 101 61 65 162 389
Los Angeles Montebello city 25.2% 15.5% 16.5% 42.8% 100% 1,031 32 3 0 269 161 175 461 1,066
Los Angeles Monterey Park city 25.0% 15.5% 17.0% 42.5% 100% 755 21 41 2 205 123 137 350 815
Los Angeles Norwalk city 25.8% 15.7% 16.3% 42.1% 100% 187 5 9 0 52 31 33 85 201
Los Angeles Palmdale city 25.5% 15.5% 16.6% 42.4% 100% 6,432 158 0 1,139 1,395 827 898 2,332 5,452
Los Angeles Palos Verdes Estates city 27.3% 16.8% 17.6% 38.3% 100% 3 0 15 2 4 3 3 6 16
Los Angeles Paramount city 24.7% 15.2% 16.2% 43.9% 100% 151 5 0 51 26 16 17 46 105
Los Angeles Pasadena city 25.4% 15.9% 16.9% 41.8% 100% 2,051 65 29 812 340 207 224 561 1,332
Los Angeles Pico Rivera city 25.4% 15.8% 16.6% 42.2% 100% 829 20 0 0 217 131 140 362 850
Los Angeles Pomona city 25.2% 15.3% 16.4% 43.0% 100% 3,862 110 0 346 919 543 592 1,572 3,626
Los Angeles Rancho Palos Verdes city 26.9% 16.5% 17.4% 39.2% 100% 30 1 0 0 8 5 5 13 31
Los Angeles Redondo Beach city 26.5% 16.4% 17.1% 40.0% 100% 1,293 38 121 56 372 223 238 564 1,397
Los Angeles Rolling Hills city 27.3% 16.5% 17.8% 38.4% 100% 9 0 2 5 2 1 1 2 6
Los Angeles Rolling Hills Estates city 27.1% 16.6% 17.9% 38.3% 100% 14 0 2 11 1 1 1 2 5
Los Angeles Rosemead city 25.3% 15.0% 16.5% 43.2% 100% 550 17 35 0 153 88 99 262 602
Los Angeles San Dimas city 26.1% 15.9% 16.8% 41.1% 100% 457 11 4 9 121 72 77 193 463
Los Angeles San Fernando city 25.3% 15.3% 16.1% 43.3% 100% 221 6 5 15 55 32 35 95 217
Los Angeles San Gabriel city 25.3% 15.6% 16.6% 42.4% 100% 958 29 0 57 236 142 154 398 930
Los Angeles San Marino city 27.0% 16.6% 18.0% 38.4% 100% 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
Los Angeles Santa Clarita city 26.4% 16.2% 17.0% 40.3% 100% 8,338 197 2 216 2,208 1,315 1,410 3,389 8,322
Los Angeles Santa Fe Springs city 25.2% 15.8% 16.5% 42.5% 100% 350 9 0 35 82 50 53 139 324
Los Angeles Santa Monica city 25.5% 16.1% 17.0% 41.5% 100% 1,745 64 83 218 428 263 283 700 1,674
Los Angeles Sierra Madre city 26.3% 16.3% 17.1% 40.3% 100% 60 2 0 7 14 9 9 23 55
Los Angeles Signal Hill city 26.1% 16.2% 16.5% 41.2% 100% 197 6 0 34 44 27 28 70 169
Los Angeles South El Monte city 24.8% 14.9% 16.4% 43.9% 100% 162 5 6 0 43 25 28 76 172
Los Angeles South Gate city 24.8% 15.1% 16.3% 43.8% 100% 1,172 37 53 0 314 185 205 558 1,262
Los Angeles South Pasadena city 26.1% 16.2% 17.0% 40.7% 100% 130 4 3 74 17 10 11 25 63
Los Angeles Temple City city 26.2% 15.8% 16.5% 41.5% 100% 531 14 61 2 159 93 99 252 603
2 of 58/29/2012
![Page 10: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Southern California Association of Governments5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Final Allocation Plan, 1/1/2014 ‐ 10/1/2021
County
% very low income
households% low income households
% moderate income
households
% above moderate income
households % total
Household Growth (2014-
2021)Base Vacancy
Needs
Total Replacement
Needs Vacancy Credit
Number of very low income households
Number of low income
households
Number of moderate income
households
Number of above
moderate income
households Total
Los Angeles Torrance city 26.1% 16.0% 16.8% 41.0% 100% 1,416 40 38 43 380 227 243 600 1,450
Los Angeles Vernon city 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
Los Angeles Walnut city 26.9% 16.3% 17.1% 39.6% 100% 892 17 0 0 246 144 155 363 908
Los Angeles West Covina city 26.0% 15.8% 16.7% 41.5% 100% 806 20 5 0 217 129 138 347 831
Los Angeles West Hollywood city 24.8% 15.7% 16.9% 42.7% 100% 408 16 0 347 19 12 13 33 77
Los Angeles Westlake Village city 27.0% 16.3% 17.5% 39.2% 100% 44 1 0 0 12 7 8 18 45
Los Angeles Whittier city 25.9% 15.8% 16.7% 41.6% 100% 911 25 3 60 228 135 146 369 878
Los Angeles Unincorporated 25.6% 15.6% 16.8% 42.0% 100% 30,574 804 269 1,503 7,854 4,650 5,060 12,581 30,145
Orange Aliso Viejo city 23.9% 17.0% 18.2% 40.9% 100% 38 1 0 0 9 7 7 16 39
Orange Anaheim city 21.9% 16.3% 18.3% 43.5% 100% 6,877 209 0 1,385 1,256 907 1,038 2,501 5,702
Orange Brea city 22.9% 16.9% 18.2% 42.0% 100% 1,826 47 4 26 426 305 335 785 1,851
Orange Buena Park city 22.4% 16.1% 18.3% 43.2% 100% 349 10 7 27 76 53 62 148 339
Orange Costa Mesa city 24.8% 24.8% 25.0% 25.4% 100% 174 6 24 312 1 1 0 0 2
Orange Cypress city 23.1% 16.8% 18.2% 42.0% 100% 295 7 6 0 71 50 56 131 308
Orange Dana Point city 23.0% 16.6% 18.6% 41.8% 100% 474 13 17 178 76 53 61 137 327
Orange Fountain Valley city 23.1% 16.9% 18.2% 41.9% 100% 350 8 0 0 83 59 65 151 358
Orange Fullerton city 22.2% 16.6% 18.4% 42.8% 100% 2,163 62 32 416 411 299 337 794 1,841
Orange Garden Grove city 21.9% 16.4% 18.2% 43.5% 100% 715 20 12 0 164 120 135 328 747
Orange Huntington Beach city 23.0% 16.7% 18.4% 41.9% 100% 1,478 40 11 175 313 220 248 572 1,353
Orange Irvine city 23.1% 17.1% 18.5% 41.3% 100% 12,686 380 0 918 2,817 2,034 2,239 5,059 12,149
Orange Laguna Beach city 24.8% 24.8% 25.0% 25.4% 100% 32 1 1 172 1 1 0 0 2
Orange Laguna Hills city 24.8% 24.8% 25.0% 25.4% 100% 124 3 0 166 1 1 0 0 2
Orange Laguna Niguel city 23.4% 17.1% 18.5% 41.0% 100% 158 4 21 0 43 30 34 75 182
Orange Laguna Woods city 24.8% 24.8% 25.0% 25.4% 100% 129 3 0 443 1 1 0 0 2
Orange La Habra city 22.4% 16.1% 18.1% 43.3% 100% 135 4 0 135 1 1 1 1 4
Orange Lake Forest city 23.6% 16.9% 18.3% 41.2% 100% 2,663 63 0 0 647 450 497 1,133 2,727
Orange La Palma city 23.2% 16.8% 18.3% 41.7% 100% 9 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 9
Orange Los Alamitos city 22.6% 17.1% 17.7% 42.6% 100% 55 2 4 0 14 10 11 26 61
Orange Mission Viejo city 23.4% 16.9% 18.5% 41.2% 100% 173 4 0 0 42 29 33 73 177
Orange Newport Beach city 23.3% 17.2% 19.0% 40.6% 100% 533 15 0 608 1 1 1 2 5
Orange Orange city 22.8% 16.6% 18.4% 42.2% 100% 394 11 7 49 83 59 66 155 363
Orange Placentia city 22.6% 16.9% 18.3% 42.2% 100% 479 12 1 0 112 81 90 209 492
Orange Rancho Santa Margarita city 23.9% 16.9% 18.4% 40.7% 100% 12 0 1 31 1 1 0 0 2
Orange San Clemente city 23.0% 16.8% 18.7% 41.5% 100% 662 17 4 101 134 95 108 244 581
Orange San Juan Capistrano city 22.9% 16.7% 18.9% 41.5% 100% 625 14 0 2 147 104 120 267 638
Orange Santa Ana city 21.8% 16.1% 18.1% 44.0% 100% 503 15 25 339 45 32 37 90 204
Orange Seal Beach city 24.8% 24.8% 25.0% 25.4% 100% 19 0 10 186 1 1 0 0 2
Orange Stanton city 21.8% 16.1% 18.1% 44.0% 100% 329 10 2 28 68 49 56 140 313
Orange Tustin city 22.9% 16.3% 18.3% 42.5% 100% 1,219 36 127 155 283 195 224 525 1,227
Orange Villa Park city 24.5% 17.3% 19.2% 39.1% 100% 14 0 0 0 3 2 3 6 14
Orange Westminster city 24.8% 24.8% 25.0% 25.4% 100% 110 3 5 297 1 1 0 0 2
Orange Yorba Linda city 23.8% 17.3% 18.9% 40.1% 100% 633 13 24 0 160 113 126 270 669
Orange Unincorporated 23.4% 17.1% 18.7% 40.8% 100% 5,094 111 67 0 1,240 879 979 2,174 5,272
Riverside Banning city 23.0% 16.0% 18.2% 42.8% 100% 4,120 101 8 437 872 593 685 1,642 3,792
Riverside Beaumont city 24.2% 16.7% 18.5% 40.6% 100% 5,415 122 2 289 1,267 854 969 2,160 5,250
Riverside Blythe city 22.7% 16.4% 18.7% 42.2% 100% 565 17 15 194 91 64 75 172 402
Riverside Calimesa city 23.2% 16.8% 18.6% 41.4% 100% 2,439 51 1 150 543 383 433 982 2,341
Riverside Canyon Lake city 25.3% 17.0% 18.9% 38.7% 100% 141 3 0 61 21 14 16 32 83
Riverside Cathedral City city 23.5% 16.2% 18.4% 41.8% 100% 1,241 32 19 693 141 95 110 254 600
Riverside Coachella city 23.0% 16.0% 18.0% 43.0% 100% 6,871 181 1 283 1,555 1,059 1,212 2,945 6,771
3 of 58/29/2012
![Page 11: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Southern California Association of Governments5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Final Allocation Plan, 1/1/2014 ‐ 10/1/2021
County
% very low income
households% low income households
% moderate income
households
% above moderate income
households % total
Household Growth (2014-
2021)Base Vacancy
Needs
Total Replacement
Needs Vacancy Credit
Number of very low income households
Number of low income
households
Number of moderate income
households
Number of above
moderate income
households Total
Riverside Corona city 25.0% 17.0% 18.4% 39.5% 100% 1,081 27 5 343 192 128 142 308 770
Riverside Desert Hot Springs city 22.6% 16.1% 18.5% 42.8% 100% 4,944 151 3 903 946 661 772 1,817 4,196
Riverside Eastvale city 25.6% 17.1% 18.7% 38.6% 100% 1,578 32 0 147 374 250 274 565 1,463
Riverside Hemet city 22.2% 16.3% 18.6% 43.0% 100% 2,797 74 0 2,267 134 96 112 262 604
Riverside Indian Wells city 25.3% 17.3% 19.2% 38.2% 100% 291 6 1 138 40 27 31 62 160
Riverside Indio city 23.6% 16.5% 18.4% 41.5% 100% 4,053 103 0 1,131 714 487 553 1,271 3,025
Riverside Jurupa Valley city 23.9% 16.1% 17.9% 42.1% 100% 1,975 49 0 313 409 275 307 721 1,712
Riverside Lake Elsinore city 24.3% 16.7% 18.3% 40.8% 100% 5,211 131 11 424 1,196 801 897 2,035 4,929
Riverside La Quinta city 25.0% 17.1% 18.2% 39.7% 100% 1,336 30 18 1,020 91 61 66 146 364
Riverside Menifee city 23.9% 16.5% 18.3% 41.3% 100% 6,842 150 0 748 1,488 1,007 1,140 2,610 6,245
Riverside Moreno Valley city 24.3% 16.5% 18.1% 41.1% 100% 7,114 182 15 1,142 1,500 993 1,112 2,564 6,169
Riverside Murrieta city 25.1% 17.1% 18.5% 39.3% 100% 2,174 52 4 657 395 262 289 627 1,573
Riverside Norco city 25.0% 17.0% 18.6% 39.4% 100% 809 17 4 12 205 136 151 326 818
Riverside Palm Desert city 23.9% 16.5% 18.6% 41.0% 100% 1,960 50 0 1,596 98 67 76 172 413
Riverside Palm Springs city 23.3% 16.3% 18.5% 42.0% 100% 2,010 55 8 1,802 63 43 50 116 272
Riverside Perris city 24.0% 16.3% 17.8% 41.9% 100% 4,693 118 4 536 1,026 681 759 1,814 4,280
Riverside Rancho Mirage city 24.3% 17.1% 18.6% 40.0% 100% 594 12 0 511 23 15 18 39 95
Riverside Riverside city 24.2% 16.5% 18.2% 41.0% 100% 9,534 270 35 1,556 2,002 1,336 1,503 3,442 8,283
Riverside San Jacinto city 23.1% 16.6% 18.2% 42.1% 100% 3,000 74 5 646 562 394 441 1,036 2,433
Riverside Temecula city 25.2% 17.2% 18.2% 39.4% 100% 1,903 46 14 470 375 251 271 596 1,493
Riverside Wildomar city 24.5% 16.8% 18.3% 40.4% 100% 2,620 60 1 146 621 415 461 1,038 2,535
Riverside Unincorporated 23.8% 16.6% 18.4% 41.3% 100% 32,994 752 0 3,443 7,173 4,871 5,534 12,725 30,303
San Bernardino Adelanto city 22.2% 16.5% 18.1% 43.1% 100% 3,276 91 8 534 633 459 513 1,236 2,841
San Bernardino Apple Valley town 22.8% 16.6% 18.8% 41.8% 100% 4,055 98 0 819 764 541 622 1,407 3,334
San Bernardino Barstow city 22.2% 16.8% 18.4% 42.6% 100% 1,456 44 4 662 188 138 154 363 843
San Bernardino Big Bear Lake city 25.0% 25.0% 25.1% 24.8% 100% 188 5 11 776 1 1 0 0 2
San Bernardino Chino city 24.3% 16.9% 18.5% 40.2% 100% 3,008 73 0 187 707 478 533 1,176 2,894
San Bernardino Chino Hills city 25.0% 17.6% 19.1% 38.3% 100% 844 18 0 0 217 148 164 333 862
San Bernardino Colton city 23.0% 16.1% 18.1% 42.8% 100% 2,265 67 17 425 443 302 347 831 1,923
San Bernardino Fontana city 24.0% 16.7% 18.3% 40.9% 100% 6,385 155 0 564 1,442 974 1,090 2,471 5,977
San Bernardino Grand Terrace city 23.6% 16.9% 18.4% 41.1% 100% 158 4 0 44 28 19 22 49 118
San Bernardino Hesperia city 23.1% 16.4% 18.4% 42.1% 100% 2,416 60 7 768 398 274 314 729 1,715
San Bernardino Highland city 23.2% 16.8% 18.8% 41.2% 100% 1,744 44 3 291 349 246 280 625 1,500
San Bernardino Loma Linda city 23.1% 16.6% 18.6% 41.7% 100% 1,354 45 3 308 254 177 202 462 1,095
San Bernardino Montclair city 23.4% 16.7% 18.0% 41.9% 100% 709 19 3 35 164 114 125 294 697
San Bernardino Needles city 21.0% 16.6% 18.9% 43.4% 100% 359 10 3 191 38 29 34 80 181
San Bernardino Ontario city 23.8% 16.5% 18.3% 41.5% 100% 10,921 310 22 392 2,592 1,745 1,977 4,547 10,861
San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga city 24.5% 17.1% 18.7% 39.8% 100% 1,002 26 9 188 209 141 158 340 848
San Bernardino Redlands city 23.8% 16.7% 18.7% 40.8% 100% 2,765 74 8 418 579 396 453 1,001 2,429
San Bernardino Rialto city 23.4% 16.3% 18.3% 42.0% 100% 3,304 85 0 674 636 432 496 1,151 2,715
San Bernardino San Bernardino city 22.3% 16.3% 18.5% 43.0% 100% 6,116 183 113 2,028 980 696 808 1,900 4,384
San Bernardino Twentynine Palms city 22.5% 16.3% 18.6% 42.6% 100% 807 28 2 384 103 72 84 195 454
San Bernardino Upland city 24.0% 16.7% 18.6% 40.7% 100% 1,945 54 3 412 382 260 294 653 1,589
San Bernardino Victorville city 23.0% 16.8% 18.3% 42.0% 100% 8,679 230 42 1,579 1,698 1,207 1,342 3,124 7,371
San Bernardino Yucaipa city 23.4% 16.7% 18.7% 41.2% 100% 1,942 44 13 395 376 261 299 669 1,605
San Bernardino Yucca Valley town 22.4% 16.4% 18.6% 42.6% 100% 1,262 33 2 366 209 149 172 400 930
San Bernardino Unincorporated 23.0% 16.5% 18.5% 41.9% 100% 3,662 89 197 4,392 9 6 7 17 39
Ventura Camarillo city 24.1% 16.9% 18.6% 40.4% 100% 2,229 54 0 59 539 366 411 908 2,224
Ventura Fillmore city 23.0% 16.6% 18.5% 41.9% 100% 714 18 2 40 160 112 128 294 694
Ventura Moorpark city 24.7% 17.3% 18.7% 39.3% 100% 1,135 25 4 0 289 197 216 462 1,164
4 of 58/29/2012
![Page 12: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Southern California Association of Governments5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Final Allocation Plan, 1/1/2014 ‐ 10/1/2021
County
% very low income
households% low income households
% moderate income
households
% above moderate income
households % total
Household Growth (2014-
2021)Base Vacancy
Needs
Total Replacement
Needs Vacancy Credit
Number of very low income households
Number of low income
households
Number of moderate income
households
Number of above
moderate income
households Total
Ventura Ojai city 23.3% 16.3% 19.0% 41.4% 100% 382 11 0 22 87 59 70 155 371
Ventura Oxnard city 23.0% 16.3% 18.6% 42.1% 100% 7,090 200 11 0 1,688 1,160 1,351 3,102 7,301
Ventura Port Hueneme city 23.1% 15.9% 18.2% 42.8% 100% 162 5 0 173 1 1 0 0 2
Ventura San Buenaventura (Ventura) cit 23.5% 16.6% 18.5% 41.5% 100% 3,706 105 6 163 861 591 673 1,529 3,654
Ventura Santa Paula city 22.3% 16.0% 18.9% 42.8% 100% 1,261 35 2 14 288 201 241 555 1,285
Ventura Simi Valley city 24.6% 17.0% 18.4% 40.1% 100% 1,228 28 0 0 310 208 229 509 1,256
Ventura Thousand Oaks city 24.6% 17.1% 18.8% 39.5% 100% 188 4 0 0 47 32 36 77 192
Ventura Unincorporated 24.2% 16.9% 18.7% 40.3% 100% 1,534 37 15 177 246 168 189 412 1,015
*Final income category distribution is based on 2005-09 ACS data, HCD’s regional income category distribution, 110% social equity adjustment, and adjustments resulting from any incorporation agreements. Due to rounding, the Final RHNA Allocation
may not follow the exact percentage.
**The Draft RHNA Allocation components do not total the Final RHNA Allocation due to adjustments resulting from the revision request process (La Puente and County of Ventura), and a correction made due to the inclusion of unincorporated county growth (Glendora).
In some local jurisdictions,the sum of the components may not equal to the Final RHNA Allocation.
5 of 58/29/2012
![Page 13: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![Page 14: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Page 1 of 7
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
Staff Recommendation
January 19, 2012
Los Angeles Rainwater Harvesting Project
Project No. 11-072
Project Manager: David Hayes
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $714,600 to The River Project to
develop the Los Angeles Rainwater Harvesting Project as part of the City of Los Angeles „Green
Streets Initiative‟ program.
LOCATION: City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County
PROGRAM CATEGORY: Integrated Coastal and Marine Resources Protection
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Project Location
Exhibit 2: Area Map
Exhibit 3: Project Letters
RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to
Sections 31220 of the Public Resources Code:
“The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes disbursement of up to seven hundred fourteen
thousand six hundred dollars ($714,600) to The River Project to develop the Los Angeles
Rainwater Harvesting Project, for water quality and conservation purposes subject to the
condition that prior to disbursement of funds The River Project shall submit the following for the
review and approval of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy:
1. A work program, including budget and schedule;
2. Evidence that The River Project has secured all of the remaining funds, or staff time
commitments needed to complete the project.”
Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings:
“Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy
hereby finds that:
![Page 15: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
LOS ANGELES RAINWATER HARVESTING PROJECT
Page 2 of 7
1. The proposed project is consistent with the current Project Selection Criteria and Guidelines.
2. The proposed authorization is consistent with the purposes and objectives of Chapters 5.5 of
Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, regarding integrated coastal and marine resources
protection.
3. The River Project is a nonprofit organization existing under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S.
Internal Revenue Code, and whose principal charitable purposes are consistent with Division
21 of the Public Resources Code.”
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The River Project (TRP) will implement the Los Angeles Rainwater Harvesting Project to
facilitate widespread implementation of residential stormwater harvesting in the City of Los
Angeles. The proposed project would contribute to the City‟s long-term water supply goals
of increased conservation and development of a more sustainable local supply. The water
that is captured and infiltrated will further augment the San Fernando groundwater basin,
which has historically provided between 10 and 15 percent of the City‟s total water supply,
as well as provide significant benefits for water quality at beaches throughout Los Angeles
County.
This project will develop standard plans to guide homeowners installing stormwater harvesting
improvements on their own property. The standard plans will be reviewed by a City of Los
Angeles Technical Advisory Committee and will be tested at a minimum of twenty-four
demonstration households. These demonstration sites will be monitored for two years, and data
collected through this project will be used to document the costs and the benefits of future
investments in these projects. Finally, the project will provide standard plans for inclusion in an
updated version of the City‟s Rainwater Harvesting Manual and as the City‟s Green Residence
Standards to be adopted and incorporated into the City‟s “Green Streets Initiative” program.
When completed the Green Residential Standard Plans can be replicated in the Los Angeles
River watershed and communities elsewhere in the City of Los Angeles.
The standard plans will be developed for a variety of stormwater harvesting techniques,
including: rain gardens,1 French drains (which capture the storm water), dry wells, graywater
systems, Hollywood driveways,2 cisterns, lawn removal, native plants and edible landscapes.
The plans will address Best Management Practice (BMPs), material types, availability,
constructability, maintenance, and the cost for installation. Based upon the City‟s technical
review, the plans will be further developed to 80% preliminary standard plans. The
plans will be user-friendly, designed for easy approval by the Planning Department, and made
widely available through web, YouTube and other social media, including City department
website links. A series of hands-on intensive workshops will also be provided by TRP to teach
1 A rain garden is a landscaped, shallow depression that allows rain to be collected and seep naturally into the ground. This helps
recharge the groundwater supply and prevents polluted runoff (nonpoint source pollution). 2 Hollywood Driveways typically have a dividing strip of grass or other media in order to reduce the amount of impervious
surface.
![Page 16: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
LOS ANGELES RAINWATER HARVESTING PROJECT
Page 3 of 7
participants about watershed management, site evaluation, landscape design, soil science and
mulching principles, native plants, irrigation, and maintenance.
TRP will work with at least two dozen homeowners to design individualized suites of rainwater
harvesting and water conservation techniques on their properties (as a test in developing the
standardized plans). The project, as authorized, will fund some materials and design assistance
by TRP. Projects will designed to be affordable for average homeowners, and will be designed
and implemented by the residents themselves. Participating homeowners will be required to
contribute the required labor on their project as well as another residence in order to build a
community of rain harvesters. The actual installation of the rainwater harvesting materials will
be provided by the landowners‟ efforts, or „sweat equity‟. Participating homeowners will commit
to maintaining rain harvest projects for a minimum of two years, when post-project performance
data collection by TRP will be completed. These techniques will include rain gardens, French
drains (which capture the storm water), dry wells, graywater systems, Hollywood driveways,
cisterns, lawn removal, native plants and edible landscapes.
The Los Angeles Rainwater Harvest project is one of the multi-benefit projects proposed by the
Neighborhood Council from the Tujunga/Pacoima Watershed Plan and is supported by a variety
governmental agencies and non-profit organizations. (See Project Letters; Ex. 3)
TRP is a tax-exempt, 501(c) (3) nonprofit, dedicated to planning for natural resource protection,
conservation, enhancement, and revitalization of rivers and watershed lands in Los Angeles
County. TRP has been active in the Tujunga/Pacoima area for nearly a decade, undertaking such
projects as Tujunga Wash Hydrodynamic Study, planning and interpretive work for the Taylor
Yard/Rio de Los Angeles State Park, and for the Sepulveda Basin Habitat enhancement plan.
Additionally, TRP has done extensive work on the Tujunga/Pacoima Watershed and produced a
comprehensive management plan for the Tujunga Wash sub-watershed.
Site Description:
The Los Angeles Rainwater Harvesting project will take place in the Tujunga/Pacoima sub-
watershed of the Los Angeles River. The heaviest rain volumes in the Los Angeles River
Watershed tend to be concentrated in the upper Tujunga/Pacoima watershed, with rainfall
averages above 15 inches/year. The soils with the highest percolation rates are also located in
these foothills and along historic stream courses in the area. The project is sited in this upper
watershed region to take advantage of its inherent qualities, and designed to enhance
opportunities for localized capture and infiltration of storm water, reduce flood potential in
the area, replace water-intensive non-native vegetation with native habitat, and increase
conservation practices by homeowners.
Project History:
The River Project has been actively engaged in watershed restoration efforts in Los
Angeles for a dozen years, working with the Coastal Conservancy on a variety of projects.
With funding from the Coastal Conservancy, TRP undertook scientific studies to determine
surface and ground water quality at Taylor Yard, now the site of Rio de Los Angeles State
Park; assisted with restoration projects at Sepulveda Basin; and engaged in community
![Page 17: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
LOS ANGELES RAINWATER HARVESTING PROJECT
Page 4 of 7
outreach and river greenway design for the Valleyheart Greenway along the Los Angeles
River. TRP produced the “Hydrodynamic Study of the Tujunga Wash” with funding
from the Coastal Conservancy in 2002, and the “Tujunga/Pacoima Watershed Plan” with
funding from the CalFed Watershed Program in 2008, both of which have led to this
project.
Additionally, characteristics of this project were identified in the recommendations from the
Los Angeles Rain Barrel Harvest Project, as the next key step in developing a comprehensive
and functional rainwater harvesting policy in the City of Los Angeles.
Consistent with the goals of The Los Angeles Rain Barrel project funded by the Santa
Monica Bay Restoration Commission (SMBRC), this project is complimentary with a wider
variety of rain harvesting techniques of the Rain Barrel Project; however the project location
was outside of SMBRC‟s jurisdiction. TRP solicited funding from the Coastal Conservancy
because of our natural resource conservation work in the Los Angeles watershed.
PROJECT FINANCING
Coastal Conservancy $714,600
City of Los Angeles $27,000
Total Project Costs $741,600*
_________
Funding for this project is anticipated to come from the fiscal year 2009/10 appropriation of the
Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control Protection Bond Act of 2006
(“Proposition 84”). Proposition 84 authorizes the use of these funds for projects that prevent
contamination and degradation of coastal waters and watersheds consistent with the
Conservancy‟s enabling legislation. (Public Resources Code Section 75060(a)). The proposed
project is consistent with the Conservancy‟s legislation, Division 21 of the Public Resources
Code; as described below (Public Resources Code Section 75074).
*Not shown in the project financing is a commitment of valuable senior staff time for
consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee; from the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power ($12,000 in funds or materials plus staff time up to $13,000), Generation Water
($15,000); from the City Bureau of Sanitation, the Department of Building and Safety and the
Department of Planning (staff time of up to $85,000). The estimated staff service contribution is
approximately $98,000, in addition to the $27,000 in funds, materials and rebates reflected in the
project financing table. Although there is interest throughout the City departments, as evidenced
by the attached support letters, its ability to help fund this project is limited to in-kind services
and a rebate program now under consideration. This is an important contribution to achieving the
overall goals of this project, to ensure that the residential rainwater harvesting methods meet a
standard that is acceptable to City departments and is supported by a user friendly permitting
process.
![Page 18: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
LOS ANGELES RAINWATER HARVESTING PROJECT
Page 5 of 7
CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY’S ENABLING LEGISLATION:
This project would be undertaken pursuant to Chapter 5. of the Conservancy‟s enabling
legislation, Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, regarding integrated coastal and marine
resources protection. Section 31220(a) authorizes the Conservancy to undertake and award
grants for projects that meet one or more criteria of Section 31220(b). Consistent with Section
31220(b) (7), the proposed project will help reduce the impact of population and economic
pressures on coastal and marine resources. The retrofit of residential areas will help reduce
storm-water run-off into the Los Angeles River and it will serve as a model for the City as a
whole.
Section 31220(c) requires that projects funded under Section 31220 be consistent with the
Integrated Watershed Management Program established under Section 30947, local watershed
management plans, if available, and water quality control plans adopted by the State Water
Resources Control Board and regional water quality control boards; and include a monitoring
and evaluation component. As discussed in detail below under “Consistency with Local
Watershed Management Plan/State Water Quality Control Plan,” the proposed project is
consistent with local and state watershed plans. In addition, the project includes a monitoring and
evaluation component.
CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY’S 2007
STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S) & OBJECTIVE(S):
Consistent with Goal 6, Objective 6.F of the Conservancy‟s 2007 Strategic Plan, the proposed
project will improve water quality to benefit coastal resources, and promote conservation water
resource policies concerning urban watershed runoff for beneficial uses and provide funding for
projects that address pollution cleanup and prevention, using best-management practices.
CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY’S
PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA & GUIDELINES:
The proposed project is consistent with the Conservancy‟s Project Selection Criteria and
Guidelines, last updated on June 4, 2009, in the following respects:
Required Criteria
1. Promotion of the Conservancy’s statutory programs and purposes: See the “Consistency
with Conservancy‟s Enabling Legislation” section above.
2. Consistency with purposes of the funding source: See the “Project Financing” section
above.
3. Support of the public: The project has broad support. City Council District 6, the
community partners such as Panorama City Neighborhood Council, and nonprofit advocates
including TreePeople and Green LA support the project for its multi-beneficial aspects and
the fact that it will provide homeowners throughout the region with the tools to
implement a variety of water smart projects on their own. See Project Letters, Exhibit 3.
![Page 19: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
LOS ANGELES RAINWATER HARVESTING PROJECT
Page 6 of 7
4. Location: This project is located in the Tujunga/Pacoima Wash watershed which drains to
the Los Angeles River. Its location serves well as a model for the upper Los Angeles River
watershed and when completed will benefit coastal resources by treating runoff and reducing
the amount of runoff and pollution that reaches the coast. Perhaps even more important, the
project will result in a scalable approach to harvesting and conserving rainwater for the
entire upper Los Angeles River region.
5. Need: Without the Conservancy‟s funding assistance the City of Los Angeles would not
have the resources to develop the prototype Rain Harvest s tandards. This comprehensive
approach advances the Los Angeles Rain Barrel project concepts of rainwater harvesting to
a variety of best management practices for residential retrofits that includes field tested
methods standardized acceptable by city agencies. The initial labor intensive recruitment and
training workshops, field work, and social media materials could not be performed by city
staff. Without Conservancy funding, this timely and scalable project would not occur for an
undetermined time.
6. Greater-than-local interest: The project will help improve water quality, and recharge a
huge groundwater basin that drains the entire San Fernando Valley. The project is designed
to be replicated throughout the Los Angeles River Watershed, the City of Los Angeles and
provide significant benefits for water quality at beaches throughout Los Angeles County.
7. Sea level rise vulnerability: The project area is located within the Los Angeles river
watershed, at an elevation of approximately 814 feet above sea level, and not subject to tidal
influences.
Additional Criteria
8. Resolution of more than one issue: This project will help resolve local water quality issues,
serve as a model for regional water quality and supply, and will encourage planting native
plants and thereby creating wildlife habitat. Additionally, it will provide a helpful “Green
Residential Standard Plans” for city review of several rainwater harvesting methods. The
plans will be designed for easy approval by the Los Angeles Planning Department, and other
City departments which addresses one of the primary factors that currently prevents
homeowners from installing rainwater harvesting methods other than rain barrels on their
properties.
9. Innovation: This project demonstrates an innovative and comprehensive approach to solving
several issues at once by: providing public access to “how-to” workshops for homeowners
and resulting in a variety of model residential retrofits for do-it-yourself homeowners.
10. Readiness: The River Project is prepared to begin as soon as a grant agreement is finalized.
The Technical Advisory Committee from the City departments is also ready to commence
work on the project.
11. Realization of prior Conservancy goals: “See “Project History”
13. Cooperation: The project is collaboration between City of Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, Department of
Building and Safety and the Department of Planning, State Water Resources Control Board
and the non-profit The River Project.
![Page 20: New Comments E & E Agenda No. 2-CF 14-0998 Water Integrated …clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0998_pc_8-19-14a.pdf · 2015. 2. 26. · Revitalization Master Plan and large developments](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022071215/604622ebf96e4d10887e3a34/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
LOS ANGELES RAINWATER HARVESTING PROJECT
Page 7 of 7
14. Vulnerability from climate change impacts other than sea level rise: Preliminary weather
scenarios are projected for increased cycles of drought and wet periods within the Southern
California area, including Tujunga/Pacoima Watershed. Increased drought periods would
potentially reduce the amount of rain that can be stored in surface impoundments and
subsequently infiltrated groundwater basins. Climate change is likely to impact the amount
of imported water available to use within Southern California as well. Increased storm
intensities could potentially exceed the capacity of existing flood protection system within
the watershed and the rain gardens and other landscape treatments would ameliorate that
impact to some degree.
The heaviest rain volumes in the Los Angeles River Watershed tend to be concentrated in the
upper Tujunga/Pacoima watershed. Moreover, the soils with the highest percolation rates, are
located in the foothills and along historic stream courses and finally, the San Fernando
Groundwater Basin underlies the project area, and recent analysis indicates that there is
underutilized storage water capacity within the basin.
15. Minimization of greenhouse gas emissions: The residential projects are small in nature and
will be performed by individual homeowners using hand tools with little or no emissions.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN/
STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN:
The project is consistent with the Los Angeles River Restoration Master Plan, adopted by the
City in 2007. The project addresses seven of the nine goals of The River Project‟s
“Tujunga/Pacoima Watershed Plan” (2007) and assists with the goals of the greater Los Angeles
IRWMP (2008); the City‟s Water Supply Action Plan “Securing LA‟s Water Supply” (2008);
Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation (LABOS) “Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban
Runoff” (2009), and “Climate LA: Municipal Program Implementing the Green LA Climate
Action Plan” (2008). The Proposed Rainwater Harvest Project is a project listed in the
“Tujunga/Pacoima Watershed Plan” (Section 8.2).
COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15307
and 15308 because the development of the rainwater harvesting standards by the various City
departments are designed to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural
resource and the process involves procedures for protection of the environment. With respect to
the projects to be monitored by The River Project, the residential projects are categorically
exempt pursuant to 14 CCR section 15304 (minor alterations to land) in that the residential
projects involve minor, private alterations in the condition of land and vegetation which do not
involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. Additionally the proposed project is
characterized as gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional
landscaping with water efficient landscaping, and therefore also exempt under 14 CCR Section
15304(b). Upon approval, staff will file a Notice of Exemption.